This startup wants to edit embryos, and tech giants are paying for it

Preventive, a San Francisco startup backed by OpenAI's Sam Altman and Coinbase's Brian Armstrong, is researching embryo gene editing to prevent hereditary diseases

Imagine a future where parents can design their child’s genes before birth, erasing hereditary disease, choosing stronger bones or sharper minds. For a San Francisco startup named Preventive, backed by OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong, that future is not science fiction but an active research project.

 

What began as a secretive experiment inside a WeWork office has now drawn global attention, pitting Silicon Valley’s faith in innovation against the world’s deepest bioethical fears.

 

Who's behind the startup?

 

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, Preventive has raised about $30 million to study whether editing human embryos could prevent serious genetic illnesses. The company, co-founded by Lucas Harrington, a CRISPR-trained scientist and former collaborator of Nobel laureate Jennifer Doudna, says it will not move to human trials until safety is established.

 

Because embryo editing is banned in the United States, Preventive is exploring jurisdictions such as the United Arab Emirates that permit research in this area, the report said.

The Silicon Valley connection

 

Preventive’s work is part of a larger push by Silicon Valley’s elite to reshape reproduction. Armstrong and Altman join investors such as Peter Thiel and Alexis Ohanian, who have funded genetic testing startups including Orchid, Nucleus Genomics, and Herasight.

 

These firms already sell polygenic screening services, which predict the likelihood of disease or traits such as height, intelligence, or anxiety risk in embryos created through IVF.

 

Armstrong has argued that gene editing could help create children “less prone to heart disease” and with “stronger bones”. On X, he wrote that “it is far easier to correct a smaller number of cells before disease progression occurs, such as in an embryo.”

 

Is gene editing ethical?

 

Experts say the science isn’t ready. Fyodor Urnov of the University of California, Berkeley, told the Wall Street Journal that such ventures are “either lying, delusional, or both", claiming their real goal is “baby improvement”.

 

Stanford bioethicist Hank Greely said the technology’s risk-benefit ratio “sucks at this point”. Even Doudna, the CRISPR pioneer, has urged restraint, saying the field must prove it can move forward “responsibly”, the report said.

 

The debate echoes the 2018 case of He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who created the first genetically edited babies immune to HIV. He was later jailed, and the incident led to a global moratorium on embryo editing.

 

Still, with gene therapies for adults now emerging and private capital pouring in, startups like Preventive are pushing those boundaries again, arguing that regulation should evolve with science.

 

What’s next

 

Preventive insists it will publish all research findings and avoid clinical trials until the technology is proven safe. Yet the boundary between disease prevention and genetic enhancement remains murky.

 

If successful, embryo editing could eradicate hereditary illnesses. But it might also usher in a world where human design becomes the next frontier of inequality.

 

“The field will be watching to see whether the science supports moving forward responsibly,” said Doudna.